Rick Berman: Yea or Nay?
- Thread starter BillJ
- Start date
Give the man credit for turning TNG, which was for the most part a steaming pile of cowpat during season 1, in to the 7 season express train that people are still watching 25 years later. But after that, he fucked up badly, along with his mate Brannon Braga.
I think history will record he did more damage to Trek than good. The decision to can TNG after 7 seasons and go to the movie franchise was apparently a source of amazement amongst the cast. Not sure if that was the studio's decision or his.
I think history will record he did more damage to Trek than good. The decision to can TNG after 7 seasons and go to the movie franchise was apparently a source of amazement amongst the cast. Not sure if that was the studio's decision or his.
Berman was a good producer who could deliver shows and films on time and within budget. He may have been somewhat conservative as a creator, IMO, but he also had to contend with mandates from UPN during the run of VOY and ENT.
But given how much Trek was produced during his tenure, I'd have to say his run was overall a successful one, so yea.
But given how much Trek was produced during his tenure, I'd have to say his run was overall a successful one, so yea.
Berman actually took over during the first season. Roddenberry was there to launch TNG and personally guided the early episodes, but then stepped back into a supervisory role after handing the reins over to Berman about halfway during season one. After that, Berman would run things by Roddenberry who would give either his yes or no, but essentially, the Berman-era began long before the third season.
Last edited:
That was a decision the studio made, not Berman.
Honestly? I think Rick and Co.'s problems came from desperate desires to be "faithful" to Roddenberry's vision...even when the vision started to get a little absurd (as the Richard Arnold era of TrekLit indicated...).
When they "covered up the bust," as it were--hello, DS9--they did great. When they went the other route...not so much. Remember, TATV was made out of a desire to please the fans. Of course, it did the opposite.
And TBH--I think VGR and ENT are much better than their reputation. Frankly, I'd say their failures were more due to "Trek Overload" than anything else....
When they "covered up the bust," as it were--hello, DS9--they did great. When they went the other route...not so much. Remember, TATV was made out of a desire to please the fans. Of course, it did the opposite.
And TBH--I think VGR and ENT are much better than their reputation. Frankly, I'd say their failures were more due to "Trek Overload" than anything else....
Accusing him of ruining Trek is silly. That guy gave us 30 years of Star Trek. 25 seasons, 625 TV episodes, 4 movies.
I do think there's some truth to this. IMO, Berman took Roddenberry's ideas about TNG and kind of regarded them as absolutes even after TNG ended.
Berman's approach was too conservative, which led the franchise down a path that was behind the curve of contemporary television. He enforced a bland visual style that had little movement and was lit in a way that was usually uncinematic. He preferred the infamous "sonic wallpaper" approach to scoring instead of thematic music. He eschewed serialized storytelling in favor of episodic fare.
Of course, when the franchise was in trouble (Enterprise), Berman eased all of these restrictions, but by then it was too late.
Nay.
Of course, when the franchise was in trouble (Enterprise), Berman eased all of these restrictions, but by then it was too late.
Nay.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right but I have a hard time picturing Star Trek expanding the way it did under anyone else's watch.
Well, I'm not so sure about that. He still had the final say on Deep Space Nine and allowed it to use serialized storylines. He may not have been a fan of that style but neither does he seem to have blocked it.
It would be interesting to see what the road would've been like without UPN...
Berman let the writers on DS9 have some freedom, yes, to the show's benefit. But they were still rather restricted and only told fully serialized stories twice (The season 5-6 occupation arc, which lasted seven episodes and the season 7 final chapter, which lasted ten episodes).
But it also had far more running threads than any other Trek series.
If the choices were more nuanced, I might have voted differently.
Berman wasn't responsible for the train wreck that was season 1 of TNG. But with Berman as executive producer, TNG rose above that and kept going. By no means should Berman burn in hell for seasons 3, 4, 5, and 6 of TNG, a period which did anything but ruin Star Trek.
With that in mind, given the poll options, I had to go with yea.
Berman wasn't responsible for the train wreck that was season 1 of TNG. But with Berman as executive producer, TNG rose above that and kept going. By no means should Berman burn in hell for seasons 3, 4, 5, and 6 of TNG, a period which did anything but ruin Star Trek.
With that in mind, given the poll options, I had to go with yea.
Though he is responsible for the train wreck at the end. I'm pretty conflicted on his legacy myself.
As I said, he let them have some freedom, yes, but he still restricted the kind of stories the writers could tell, and how long they could take to tell them.
Berman is one of the priamry dirving forces behind the popularity Trek enjoyed in the early 90s. He's easily responsible for whatever success Trek enjoys today.
He's certainly flawed, he clung to the television format of the late 80s and early 90s far too long after the rest of television moved on. For example, by 2000 and 2001 it was common to find established continuity and story arcs in a lot of shows, but the Treks that aired at the time were mostly stand alones with no real continuity at all. Not all of this was his fault, UPN was notorious at not allowing story arcs throughout Voyager's run. But Berman was in a position to convince someone otherwise and perhaps should have tried harder.
Overall, I'll give him a yea. The man gave us some of the greatest Trek out there. While he was definitely wearing down and burning out towards the end, that doesn't change all the positive contributions he's made to the Trek franchise, and they are many.
He's certainly flawed, he clung to the television format of the late 80s and early 90s far too long after the rest of television moved on. For example, by 2000 and 2001 it was common to find established continuity and story arcs in a lot of shows, but the Treks that aired at the time were mostly stand alones with no real continuity at all. Not all of this was his fault, UPN was notorious at not allowing story arcs throughout Voyager's run. But Berman was in a position to convince someone otherwise and perhaps should have tried harder.
Overall, I'll give him a yea. The man gave us some of the greatest Trek out there. While he was definitely wearing down and burning out towards the end, that doesn't change all the positive contributions he's made to the Trek franchise, and they are many.
First of all, the burn in hell option is way too far on the extreme, and that's coming from a thick skinned intolerant bastard like me.
But secondly, I think Rick Berman did a lot of good for Trek.
Remember that producers are restricted to budget and demands of the Network. And of course Producer's don't actually write the shows.
I realize Berman has done some writing, but I do believe his primary function was production.
When it comes to Voyager, that show had a lot of bad episodes, but it had a great premise and a few really good episodes. I attribute most of the bad episodes to Brannon Braga.
However, to be fair, Braga has written some really good stuff.
I don't think Braga and Berman can compare to Michael Piller, but then again, few writers and producers can.
What people need to understand, is that in making a TV show, a lot of different people can share the blame or credit, because so many different people are involved.
So I voted Yea for Berman. Now Braga would have been a different vote, but I still disagree with the harsh declaration of burn in hell.
And as much as I criticize my favorite punching bag, Brannon Braga, I have to confess, he's a better writer than I am. So even though I criticize him, it's not like I can do better.
But secondly, I think Rick Berman did a lot of good for Trek.
Remember that producers are restricted to budget and demands of the Network. And of course Producer's don't actually write the shows.
I realize Berman has done some writing, but I do believe his primary function was production.
When it comes to Voyager, that show had a lot of bad episodes, but it had a great premise and a few really good episodes. I attribute most of the bad episodes to Brannon Braga.
However, to be fair, Braga has written some really good stuff.
I don't think Braga and Berman can compare to Michael Piller, but then again, few writers and producers can.
What people need to understand, is that in making a TV show, a lot of different people can share the blame or credit, because so many different people are involved.
So I voted Yea for Berman. Now Braga would have been a different vote, but I still disagree with the harsh declaration of burn in hell.
And as much as I criticize my favorite punching bag, Brannon Braga, I have to confess, he's a better writer than I am. So even though I criticize him, it's not like I can do better.
Similar threads
